Mr. Speaker, since the Couillard affair began, the Prime Minister and his House leader have been dodging our questions for the past three weeks. Every time, they claimed that it was a question of privacy. But yesterday, we asked the Minister of Public Safety if there had been any meetings between May 1 and May 8, 2008, between our intelligence agency and the Prime Minister's Office regarding the Couillard affair and his minister. He did not want to answer because he said it was a question of national security. However, yesterday, a few hours later, outside the House, one of his staff denied that such a meeting took place.

First it was privacy, then it was national security and now, it is anyone's guess. Was there a meeting, yes or no, and why did he not want to answer?

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Obviously, as I have been getting on my feet so often, fatigue is setting in. I should make clear to the House that the Prime Minister, as he said and as I have said repeatedly, became aware of this issue on Monday afternoon, and that is when action was taken.

We have now learned that it was not just five weeks that Ms. Couillard had the documents, but seven weeks, that is, after her favourite minister returned from the meeting in Bucharest.

The Prime Minister always maintained that there was never a problem during that time. Either he is incompetent or he is covering up the facts or—perhaps—he had classified information from his office informing him of the situation concerning these documents. What is the answer?

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the documents were left in an unsecured place. That was a clear breach of the rules. The Prime Minister became aware of that Monday afternoon. Coming at that time was the resignation of the minister of foreign affairs, which was acted on very quickly.

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, once again we are veering off into the realm of personal relationships. That is not the issue in question. The issue that led to the resignation of the foreign affairs minister was the problem of leaving documents in an unsecured place.

This was not a question of the relationships anyone had with anyone else. We are not going to inquire into people's personal relationships. It has not been our practice in the past. I thought it was not the practice of the opposition parties. Perhaps they have changed their policies. We do not intend to change ours.

Mr. Speaker, this morning Canada proudly announced that Italy would modify its rules of engagement in Afghanistan. But this information was false. The Prime Minister's inner circle had to scramble to rectify matters because the information had already hit newsrooms throughout North America.

Do the Conservatives really want to show the world that their foreign affairs policy is characterized by amateurism and incompetence?

Thanks to open dialogue and cooperation, the Prime Minister was able to encourage our allies to re-examine their commitment to the Afghan mission. The former Liberal government never engaged in this kind of cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' foreign affairs policy is simple: broadcast information from their international counterparts that was shared in confidence and broadcast their incompetence—the Brodie affair, the blunder with the governor of Kandahar and then this morning's gaffe. Incompetence is obviously not limited to the member for Beauce.

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. We are proud that the Prime Minister is promoting Canadian values and the Afghan mission with our allies. We have every intention of continuing to encourage our allies to lift restrictions imposed on the troops.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's public babbling over the removal of the Italian government's caveats on the mission of its troops in Afghanistan has now made it infinitely more difficult to get those caveats removed.

The government was so desperate to find a distraction to the embarrassing resignation that it was willing to jeopardize years of careful international diplomacy. Where have we seen this before? Is this not the same as the former minister of foreign affairs musing about the removal of the governor of Kandahar?

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this government has been taking a leadership role in trying to encourage our allies to lift restrictions, to work together with our allies in Afghanistan and to appreciate their efforts.

We are not like other parties that have been calling for the mission to end and have been saying to abandon our allies. Instead, we have been taking leadership, stepping up, showing our allies how to do it, taking leadership by example and encouraging them to follow that example. Everyone in this House should be encouraging our allies to follow that example as well.

Mr. Speaker, embarrassing international headlines followed the Prime Minister to Italy yesterday, where the news of this “scandalo” greeted the Prime Minister on the front pages.

The La Stampa headline was “I piani Nato nell'alcova dell'amante”: NATO plans in the lover's room. On the front page of Corriere della Sera, it was “il ministro innamorato perde la testa (e i documenti)”: lovestruck minister loses his head and his documents.

When the Prime Minister launched his European tour, are these really the headlines he was hoping for?